If you ask the man in the street the meaning of the word evolution you will probably get a response something like: "Yes, I know what that is, it means man came from the monkeys."
Which, of course is not what it means. The word evolution means a gradual and progressive change, whether it be applied to galaxies, stars, geology, human culture, or biology.
It has been said that it is impossible to understand God without understanding evolution because evolution is a very fundamental part of creation. In any event the world we now have is the result of billions of years of evolution. And with regard to biology, contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as the theory of evolution. Biological evolution is not a theory but an established scientific fact, and there is no controversy about this amongst biologists.
There are different theories (plural, not singular) to explain evolution, but evolution itself is a scientific fact. And the different theories do not conflict with each other but are mutually complimentary and supportive.
I notice that recently even the Catholic church, after opposing Darwinism for a century, has come to acknowledge the fact of evolution, and I would think this would create enormous doctrinal problems for them.
Actually, biological evolution is an old idea, going back to ancient Greece. The Greeks had a lot of ideas, so it is not surprising that some of them turned out to be right.
But no one explained how one life form could evolve into another until 1809 when a Frenchman named Jean Lamarck provided a mechanism by which organic evolution could take place.
His hypothesis very neatly explained many things, but there was one trouble: it happened to be wrong. Lamarck's hypothesis depended on the inheritance of acquired characteristics which we now know does not happen.
The big name in evolution, of course, is Charles Darwin who was born on the same day in 1809 as Abraham Lincoln. (I suppose astrologers could make something of that fact; and perhaps there is a parallel: Lincoln freed the slaves and Darwin freed the world of its ignorance.)
Darwin's momentous book was titled On the Origin of Species and was published in 1859.
This was one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs in history, and in biology I would say the greatest breakthrough, even including the recent breaking of the genetic code.
Fred Brown has been a population activist since 1963.
He has lectured at Universities and High Schools and
has supported population NGO's. He has a strong background in science and degrees from Cal Poly and the University of Illinois.
There is, however, a legitimate question of whether mutation and natural selection are SUFFICIENT to explain evolution.
In what sort of world (and it doesn't have to be a God-created world) would an evolution of consciousness even be possible? I've posted an article on this site that uses magic as an example. Magical powers would be a tremendous evolutionary advantage, but ours is not a world (I don't believe) wherein magic is possible.
Evolution can explain the mechanics of evolution, but advocates for a philosophy of science go beyond science when they try to claim that it's a comprehensive explanation.
by
Jim Arnold (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 81 comments)
on Wednesday, September 19, 2007 at 7:18:35 AM
J.Arnold seems to question that evolution alone could explain the human mind. Personally I see no reason why it should fail to do so. Please elaborate.
-- Fred Brown
by
Fred Brown (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 5 comments)
on Wednesday, September 19, 2007 at 2:55:20 PM
I used the example of magic to point out that a strictly scientific explanation of evolution runs the risk of trivializing some wondrous things about our world. Magical powers haven’t evolved,simply because magic isn’t possible - but mind, consciousness, imagination have. Can the latter be explained as the product of a virtually infinite number of physical adjustments to physical processes? I have some 6 trillion cells in my body, and by their interaction they somehow produce a unified ME. In what sort of world is that possible? A world of mere particles might, by chance and advantage, evolve into a complex world of particle interactions. But they would always be particulate interactions. Ironically, to believe they could lead by a virtually infinite series of events to thought (and belief!) is, in effect, to believe in the virtual magic of virtual infinities. And that’s not very scientific.
by
Jim Arnold (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 81 comments)
on Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 1:07:31 AM
Jim assumes that thought is not a material process. But the scientific view is that thought is the functioning of matter. There exists no evidence to contradict that view.
Basically, science is the seeking of truth. But it is a restricted truth. Restricted to that which is demonstrable. That is why history is not science. Historians are concerned with truth (if they are any good) but history is not demonstrable. That is, you can't fight the battle of Waterloo over again. Even if you did the result would be different.
Certainly there is a mystery beyond the reach and powers of the human mind. But there is no scientific evidence that the mind is anything other than matter.
-- Fred Brown
by
Fred Brown (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 5 comments)
on Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 9:13:29 AM
"Basically, science is the seeking of truth. But it is a restricted truth. Restricted to that which is demonstrable."
I concur. But then -
"Jim assumes that thought is not a material process. But the scientific view is that thought is the functioning of matter. There exists no evidence to contradict that view."
Fred, there exists no evidence to support it, either. By your own (accurate) characterization of science, the reduction of thought to matter or a property of matter is not demonstrable, and therefore beyond scientific "view". Right or wrong, it's beyond scientific consideration.
"there is no scientific evidence that the mind is anything other than matter."
How much does a thought weigh? If it's a property, like acidity is a property of chemical combination, what's the acidity of a thought? If not weight or acidity, what material property does it have?
Evidently, my thoughts depend upon physical-physiological-biological-psychological processes, but to reduce a thought to a material process, while material processes are reduced to empirical properties, is to explain everything by explaining nothing. Thought is holistic, empirical matter is discrete; thought is willful, matter is determined or (some argue) arbitrary; thought is transcendent (capable of conceiving "infinity", for example, without counting), thought is negative (capable of denying what-is). Either thought is a whole lot more than science can consider, more than philosophical materialism can comprehend, or matter is capable of a whole lot more than its material properties describe. By second-order evidence (evidence about evidence), I'd say both.
by
Jim Arnold (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 81 comments)
on Friday, September 21, 2007 at 6:35:48 AM
Jim, I assume you will agree that a computer is purely matter. Now the question is can the computer think? Your first response is that the computer has no "free will", that is it does only what it is programmed to do. This gets us into the ancient question of the existence of free will vs. a conditioned mind. What I say is that if you really look at your own mind you will find that free will is an illusion. But this requires meditation, something that only a handful of people in the entire world understand. REAL meditation, not the nonsense that is called meditation. The one authority I would refer you to is J.Krishnamurti. That, unfortunately, is a Hindu name, which immediately creates prejudice, but Krishnamurti is not a Hindu, his teaching has nothing whatever to do with Eastern religion or philosophy.
by
Fred Brown (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 5 comments)
on Friday, September 21, 2007 at 10:17:57 AM
I think the nature of computers provides an excellent contrast to consciousness. The most complex computer consists of an array of discrete bits, each entirely independent of all the others. Some scientists believe that if a computer can be made sufficiently complex it will be able to think. But the largest, most complex computer is still an array of discrete bits. There is no intelligence IN the computer. It contains information only for us, conscious beings, who are able to comprehend information holistically. A good example of the difference is a computer screen. For the computer, each pixel is independent - there are no words or pictures, only individual pixels. It’s a commonplace but remarkable feature of consciousness that we’re able to comprehend an array of pixels as words, or pictures. And it’s revealing of the poverty of reductionistic science that they don’t “get it” – that thinking is a product of an essential feature of consciousness which computers essentially lack. The mind is a unity of interpenetrating components that is, because of its unity, able to perceive other things as unities, and to have unified thoughts.
As for meditation, I am of course skeptical of a talent that only a handful of people profess to be able to understand. Meditation of any kind is the release of thought, self, and will, so I have no problem accepting that the meditative state is an experience of absence of will. But I’d counter that there’s an experience EVERYONE in the world can understand, one that brings free will to full awareness: stand at the edge of a cliff, or a tall building, and confront the terror of your own freedom. (But don’t indulge it!)
Is free will an illusion? Scientists who say so are of the materialist school which holds that mind is matter, and that matter is determined. The corresponding belief about consciousness is that like computers, mind is just the product of complexity, something that virtually-magically appears. To get back to our original issue, I’d just say that there’s no scientific evidence for or against consciousness and free will. They are unobservable in any case, and not proper objects for scientific judgment. There is an irony, though – believing in reductionism while believing that complexity can create wholes, and believing in wholes but insisting that they can’t be willful because they reduce to their material components
Mystics who say free will, and/or the everyday world is an illusion usually say that judgment is an illusion too. And yet they are pronouncing the most profound judgment of all, about what is real and what is illusion. Mystics are widely considered to be very wise; I think they would be more wise to say instead that they have achieved a level of experience that makes the will, and judgment, and the world at large seem to them less important and desirable.
by
Jim Arnold (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 81 comments)
on Saturday, September 22, 2007 at 12:31:41 PM
"There is no intelligence in the computer" On the contrary, computers surpass human intelligence. Computers can be programmed to write poetry, compose music, and play chess better than any human.
"The mind has unified thoughts and is able to comprehend information holistically" I only wish this were true; the fact is thought is fragmented by its very nature.
"There is no scientific evidence for or against free will" One of the axioms of science is that of causation, i.e., every phenomenon has a cause. So, obviously, science cannot recognize free will.
Computers certainly do think. And usually much more rationally and accurately than humans. Now you say, "Ah, but they have to be programmed by humans." Quite right, and humans are also programmed, what the psychologists call conditioning. Most people don't even know they are conditioned. For instance, you don't know you have been conditioned to believe in free will.
"Mystics say free will is an illusion" Who cares what mystics say. Someone has said mysticism begins in mist, is centered in I, and ends in schism.
by
Fred Brown (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 5 comments)
on Monday, September 24, 2007 at 10:32:02 AM
Science – as science - can’t explain how an array of discrete bits can “cause” thinking. Each bit is a 1 or a 0. How does a pile of independent bits cause thinking?
Consciousness is presence. A computer can’t react to an unanticipated situation because it isn’t present – it’s decisions have been projected from the past.
Consciousness is transcendence. A computer will follow the instruction “add 2 plus 2 until it equals 5” forever. A conscious being will eventually say “this is pointless”, an act of recognition that transcends instruction.
"There is no scientific evidence for or against free will"?One of the axioms of science is that of causation, i.e., every phenomenon has a cause. So, obviously, science cannot recognize free will.
Science can’t deny free will, either. Science is limited to observable causal phenomena. When a scientist claims that “causal phenomena” is all there is, he’s making a philosophical judgment about the possibility of non-observable, non-causal phenomena. Right or wrong, it’s not science.
"Mystics say free will is an illusion"?Who cares what mystics say. Someone has said mysticism begins in mist, is centered in I, and ends in schism.
I was responding to your description of a mystical (non-scientific) experience of free will as being an illusion.
by
Jim Arnold (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 81 comments)
on Monday, September 24, 2007 at 11:13:49 PM
Jim, It's not correct to say "an array of discrete bits causes thinking." Discrete bits are used by a computer just as the human brain uses discrete bits. I suggest you study neurology.
"A computer's decisions have been projected from the past.." In that respect a computer is just like the human brain.
"Consciousness is transcendence" Certainly a mystical remark.
"Science can't deny free will." Jim, you seem emotionally attached to this idea of free will. Maybe you were conditioned as a Catholic. It is an idea very fundamental to Catholic theology.
by
Fred Brown (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 5 comments)
on Tuesday, September 25, 2007 at 1:37:09 PM
"Jim, It's not correct to say "an array of discrete bits causes thinking." Discrete bits are used by a computer just as the human brain uses discrete bits. I suggest you study neurology."
Thanks, I have. Brain cells aren't descret. They're interpenetrating.
""A computer's decisions have been projected from the past.." In that respect a computer is just like the human brain."
That may be your belief, but there's no evidence for it. The idea that a poem, or a scientific insight, is somehow programmed from the past seems bizarre to me.
""Consciousness is transcendence" Certainly a mystical remark."
I gave you a specific, real-life example.
""Science can't deny free will." Jim, you seem emotionally attached to this idea of free will. Maybe you were conditioned as a Catholic. It is an idea very fundamental to Catholic theology."
Fred, your ideas about science and consciousness involve an unacknowledged "presto". If a rock strikes a window and the window breaks there's a clear succession of physical interactions. To say brain cells interact and (presto) there is thought is a tremendous leap.
Besides, even causality is problematic, and has been since Hume. There's no empirical evidence even for physical causality. We see a rock strike a window and we see the window break, repeatedly, but there's nothing in that repetition other than coincidence. Causality is a thought, and unlike conditioned responses, it isn't a reaction.
by
Jim Arnold (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 81 comments)
on Wednesday, September 26, 2007 at 7:35:10 PM
"There is only one species now in the human genus. It wasn't always that way. In the past there were other species such as Homo Neanderthalensis. What happened to the other species ? The most likely answer is that they were done in by our murderous ancestors. Louis Leakey was struck by the number of early Hominid skulls he found that had holes in them. He attributes the holes to homicide and warfare."
I must disagree. This is a most pessimistic analysis of rather fragmentary data. Yes, there is some solid instances of H. Neanderthalensis eating one another, but we don't know if it was to honor the dead or not. There are clear modern ethnographic parallels supporting ritual canibalism.
And some data from both Portugal and Mt. Carmel support the intermarriage thesis between H. Neanderthalensis and H. Cro Magnon. (Of course, one could cite rape, but we just don't know.) The DNA weight from Max Planck doesn't support this, but our knowledge of DNA is not definitive.
What we do know from historic times, is that the Egyptians respected and exhibited great curiosity about foreigners, as did the Bronze Age Western Chinese with Celts--clear evidence of intermariage in both cases. And although Captain Cook didn't do well with the Hawaiians, most first contacts did go well--if based on respect. Curiosity is a primate trait which I think one could say overwhelms all others.
The "Nature red in tooth and claw" school of evolution tells us more about Victorian imperialism than does the actual evidence. Always best to remember the time and place when new ideas arise. I rather doubt that H.H.Sapiens would have gotten this far if we were genetically so disposed to attack every similar biped we encountered.
by
James Sibal (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Sunday, September 30, 2007 at 2:35:30 PM
